Critics have repeatedly said that Gov. Andrew Cuomo is attempting an "expansion" or "radical extension" of a woman's right to choose. The statements made by the opposition are outrageous and disingenuous. The governor's position is to purely codify existing federal law. To be clear, there would be no change whatsoever in law and practice now existing in the state of New York.

This is not a complicated issue. The issue of a woman's right to choose is a binary issue — either you are pro-choice or anti-choice.

Reproductive choice is the law of the land, and the governor supports the law of the land. The law allows women to make reproductive decisions on whether to continue a pregnancy under certain circumstances.

The anti-choice movement rejects the law of the land and that is its right. But while we respect moral, religious and ethical opposition to abortion, and an honest dialogue on the issue, the opposition is wrong to grossly mischaracterize the governor's position.

Let me set the record straight.

The governor's position is clear: He would simply realign state law to existing federal law and state practice because current state law is outdated. There is no editorial comment, no expansion, no radicalization and no interpretation.

For example, contrary to repeated false statements made by anti-choice opponents, the governor would not allow partial-birth abortion because a federal law bans partial-birth abortion, except for the life of the mother.

There is and can be no change to that whatsoever.

Opponents have misleadingly argued that the governor would create abortion on demand because of the inclusion of a health exemption of the mother. However, a health exemption is already the law of the land.

Again, there is and can be no change to that whatsoever.

In another often-said mischaracterization by anti-choice activists, the governor is not expanding in any way whatsoever who may perform the procedures. New York state law and regulations allow certain non-physician medical professionals (e.g. physician assistants) to perform the procedure in certain circumstances.

Again, there is no change to that whatsoever.

Finally, contrary to anti-choice opponents, the governor would not undermine religious freedom in any way. State law protects individuals who for religious or moral reasons object to providing constitutionally guaranteed abortion services. For example, state law does not require that a hospital perform an abortion.

Again, there is no change to that whatsoever.

The governor would simply realign our outdated state laws to federal law and existing state practice. No matter how hard opponents try to skew and mischaracterize that position, it's really that simple.

And although simple, it's important that it happens. The Supreme Court could always bring changes, and we want to protect a woman's current right to choose.

Supporting and enforcing the law of the land is hardly a radical position, despite how opponents have tried to frame the governor's position — far from it. One could actually argue that the opposition to a woman's right to choose — and rejection of the law of the land for more than 40 years — is the radical position.